[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 01:31:44PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> la djorden cusku di'e
> >I was thinking about this, and I think I've used it before, but
> >isn't {ka} on the same footing as {du'u} in that it always designates
> >the only member of a singleton set?
>
> I think so, yes.
>
> >(The thing that brought this up is that I was using abstractor
> >connectives
>
> Abstractor connectives are evil and should be avoided at
> all costs. :)
>
> >---I wanted le'e nu and le ka. Since the gadri are
> >different I got to thinking about this. (I ended up having the
> >gadri for {nu} "take precedence" in the connected thing (as
> >le'e nujeka), justified by the gadri for {ka} being essentially
> >only syntactic since it is always {le})).
>
> How can something be a nu and a ka at the same time? And if
> something were both nu and ka, then using {le ka} would suffice,
> given that we've agreed that ka is always a singleton. I believe
> you want just {nu}. I would say {lo'e nu terpa cu menli catra},
> since I don't have some specific set of events in mind to
> use {le'e}. Having the property can kill, but I don't think the
> property itself can.
Hrm. Perhaps you're right.
Though I don't think that kajenu would need to mean the same thing
is a ka and a nu. I think it is just short for something which
needs to be understood after expanding into two seperate sumti.
lekajenu broda == le ka broda .e le nu broda.
I'll switch it to lo'e nu though, I think you're right about that
part.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
bineByot93iDe.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped